3 ms·
Private prosecutions like this are specific to England & Wales (Scotland has a separate legal system where I believe they are extremely rare; Northern Ireland i
by zzbn00 3y ago
Private prosecutions like this are specific to England & Wales (Scotland has a separate legal system where I believe they are extremely rare; Northern Ireland is also a separate legal system).
While the incentives are not to reveal evidence the law is absolutely clear that all evidence identified must be revealed. The difficulty is that forcing and unlimited discovery to identify the evidence would break the whole legal system, and this is what parties can hide behind (for a while at least). We'll have to see when and how anybody will face the consequences of any failures to reveal the evidence.
I very much recommend reading the Judgements in Bates vs Post Office. As litigation progressed you can notice how it becomes apparent to the judge how Post Office legal tactics and behaviour undermined the prosecutions.
- NolF 3y agoThe Courts already have mechanisms to limit "unlimited" subpoenas or requests for discovery. Requests for the software source code or similar, bug reports, and other reports of issues are or would largely not be unreasonable where the key issue is reported thievery, fraud, and mismatched data based on software as the basis for the allegations and prosecution.
- zzbn00 3y agoThey do, but applications on these matters can easily overwhelm the financially weaker opponent. Interesting comment in one of the Post Office judgements: "10. Finally, disclosure is very expensive. The court will be astute to guard against it becoming either satellite litigation or a weapon in the interlocutory arsenal." https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/3408.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/3408.html